Protecting the Interests of the Employees - Assignment Example

 Protecting the Interests of the Employees Introduction The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) refers to the United States labor law that aims at protecting the interests of the employees and their close associates. This works by ensuring that employers who have one hundred and above employees offer and sixty day calendar notice to their employees regarding winding up of operations and during cases of mass layoffs. The WARN act covers a wide range of employees at various levels of duties and responsibilities. Such include supervisors, managers, salaried workers and hourly workers. The notices of employment termination must be submitted to the local chief elected official such as the mayor, the labor unions and the state dislocated worker units. The main aim why the WARN act was initiated to offer advance notices was to allow the employee and their families sufficient time to adjust to the prospective job termination. This also allows them to seek for other employment opportunities as well acquisition of new skills that will make them more competitive in their new job prospects. Exemptions to the Act There are a number of employees who are not covered by the WARN Act hence they are not subject to advance notice by their employers. Such include workers who are taking part in strike actions as well as those who are subject to labor disputes. Business partners, contract employees, and consultants who are charged with the responsibility for some period by an organization are not entitled to notification from their employers (Ford, et. al, 2000). The federal, local government and state employees are not subject to the Act as they are deemed to be protected by the government under other labor laws. Those employed on temporary basis and those who have no direct control on the undertakings of the companies that they are working for are left out of the warn Act. Factors that trigger issuance of notice One of the factors that trigger the issuance of advance notice is the closure of a plant. An employer who is covered by the Act must issue notice in circumstances where an employment site is to be shut down which is likely to lead into loss of employment. The only exemption to those who are to receive notice are the employees who have only worked for a period of six months in the last one year and those who work for the employer for an average of 20 hours per week. Another trigger is during mass layoffs in which an employer under the Act must issue advance notice where loss of employment is likely to take place (United States, 1993).  This further includes cases of relocation of businesses from one location to another that may lead to mass loss of employment. The final trigger is manifested in cases where the number of losses in terms of employment fails to meet the threshold needed for a company to close or undergo mass layoff. Penalties for the violation of the WARN laws Those employers who violate the WARN act provisions are subject to a number of penalties. The violators are required to pay each of the employee an amount that is equal to the back pay as well as the benefits for the duration of the violation which lasts for 60 days. This liability may be reduced by the period of any notice that was initially provided and any voluntary payments that the employer made to the employees (Perritt, 2012). The WARN laws are enforced by the United States district courts and the action suits are usually presented by the workers, local government units and the representatives, as part of the final judgment, the court may allow some reasonable attorney’s fees. The education and creation of awareness of the WARN laws is undertaken by the United States Department of Labour. The body also offers help in the understanding of the regulations but they are not charged with the enforcement of the WARN laws. The notification period for WARN Act The notice is required by the Act to reach the intended parties at least 60 days before the closure or the onset of the layoff period. Before each separation, the state dislocated worker unit and the local government must receive the notice and the workers too must receive the notice at least 60 days. However there are three exceptions to the 60 day rule and they include the following. The unforeseeable business circumstances that apply to closings as well as layoffs that are as a result of the circumstances that were not foreseeable at the time of notice. The faltering of the company is another factor that is an exception to the 60 day rule. This exception seeks to cover situations in which the company has sought additional capital or acquisition of new business so as to remain in operation. This also applies where giving of notice is likely to ruin the chance of obtaining new capital and it applies to only closure of the company’s plant. Natural disaster is another case in which the 60 day rule applies when the layoff or closure that has been caused by the occurrence of a natural disaster such as storm, flood, drought and earthquake (Best & Barnes, 2007). Any employer who offers a less than 60 days advance notice must be able to defend the decision by relying on the above three exceptions. They must support the notice document with sufficient and exact reason for its submission within days below the 60 day period. Conclusion The general requirements for the notice include the fact that all must be made in writing but any method of delivery s acceptable. The notice has to be very specific and it must be given conditionally upon the occurrence or the non-occurrence of a given event. The WARN Act is thus a clear provision of the law that seek to protect the interest of the American workers. This Act has seen its application in all the states in a bid to safeguard the interest of the employees. References Best, A., & Barnes, D. W. (2007). Basic tort law: Cases, statutes, and problems. Austin: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. Ford, K. E., Notestine, K. E., Hill, R. N., & American Bar Association. (2000).Fundamentals of employment law. Chicago, Ill: Tort and Insurance Practice, American Bar Association. Perritt, Henry H., Jr. (2012). Employment Law Update 2012. Aspen Pub. United States. (1993). Revisiting the WARN Act: Coverage, compliance, and enforcement : hearing before the Subcommittee on Labor of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Third Congress, first session ... February 23, 1993. Washington: U.S. G.P.O. Read More